Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: AUChizad on May 16, 2012, 11:45:10 AM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57434510/alabama-beer-lovers-wait-for-action-on-brew-bills/
Alabama beer lovers wait for action on brew bills
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama beer lovers are pleased that the state Legislature passed a measure to allow beer to be sold in larger containers, but they're still awaiting the fate of a measure to legalize home brewing.
The Legislature sent the bill to allow larger bottles to Gov. Bentley's desk on May 9. A Bentley spokeswoman said he's still reviewing the proposal and hasn't decided whether to sign it.
The bill that would make Alabama the 49th state to allow home brewing — Mississippi would be the final holdout — was passed by the House on May 8 and is awaiting Senate action. The chair of the Senate committee that decides which bills make it to the floor could not be reached for comment.
The action came in advance of Wednesday's end of the regular session.
The so-called Gourmet Bottle bill would allow beer to be sold in bottles up to 25.4 ounces. Currently it can only be sold in containers up to 16 ounces.
Gabe Harris, president of the beer advocacy group Free the Hops, says a lot of craft and specialty beer is only sold in larger bottles and the bill could bring more beer and brewers to the state if signed.
Alabama advocates for specialty beer say the state is one of the most restrictive, but has come a long way in a short time.
"Between 2008 and now, it's really a whole new world" for craft beer in Alabama, said Dan Roberts, executive director of the Alabama Brewers Guild.
In 2009 the state first legalized "high-gravity" beers, or beer with an alcohol content of more than 6 percent. Harris said there were only two breweries in the state prior to the passage of the 2009 law. Now there are seven with about three more in the startup stages.
Last year, the Legislature passed a law allowing breweries to set up "tap rooms," or a space to serve beer on-site at their brewery. If Bentley signs the gourmet bottle bill, Free the Hops will have accomplished its legislative agenda, Harris said.
"We'll sit down after this session and talk about what we can do for craft beer in general," he said.
The group may continue to advocate for fewer restrictions on brewing in Alabama, or it may serve a more educational function, letting Alabamians know about what craft beer has to offer. Free the Hops is putting on the Magic City Beer Festival this June in Birmingham to do just that.
"Craft beer is all about choice and taste and being able to enjoy something that's made locally by people who care about beer and about their craft," Harris said. "It's not mass produced for the public — it's a niche group of people who appreciate good food, good beer, good friends."
Not all Alabamians are so gung-ho about the loosening of restrictions on beer and brewing.
DuWayne Bridges, R-Valley, filibustered the bill allowing larger bottles for about three and a half hours when it was being debated on the floor. "It's a known fact that alcohol has broken up many families and caused a lot of abuse in the home and heartache in the home," Bridges said.
He said larger containers would appeal to young people and would mislead Alabamians who get behind the wheel into thinking they could drive after only having one or two beers.
"I'm not in favor of expanding the size or the alcohol content," Bridges said. "I was successful last year — I was able to lead the charge against it (the larger bottle bill) and we killed it, but this year I was outnumbered. But that's not going to prevent me in the future from fighting the expansion of that."
Why am I picturing this as Mr. Bridges?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2_cJxYYhM&feature=related
-
"It's a known fact that alcohol has broken up many families and caused a lot of abuse in the home and heartache in the home," Bridges said.
He must know many bammers. :haha:
-
This is a bullshit waste of time.
Free the Hops my fucking ass.
-
This is a bullshit waste of time.
Free the Hops my fucking ass.
You can buy a keg of beer, but not a 40 oz. Makes sense Kaos troll.
-
What wrong wit the beer we gots now? It drank pretty good, don't it?
-
What wrong wit the beer we gots now? It drank pretty good, don't it?
Yawl need a beer run?
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g219/fewskillz/smokey-and-the-bandit.jpg)
-
What wrong wit the beer we gots now? It drank pretty good, don't it?
Alvin Holmes has the floor.
-
Alvin Holmes has the floor.
Whatsa name uh some uh dem beer?
-
This is a bullshit waste of time.
Free the Hops my fucking ass.
Correct, as are the corn liquor laws and any laws that try and legislate morality.
-
Just make sure that I can get me some of this. Only comes in 22oz bottles. Available in Tennessee, but not in Alabama.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNTHwtKLD_GpcYEXYRuB3k-bknzhIHDmUARclsfl0vYi41gRrPZJb9XibscQ)
-
One of my favorite T-shirts.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ejGMpWA7zhI/R_K0jV5VrRI/AAAAAAAAAC0/NqGEQawdMgc/s320/alvinHolmestee03.jpg)
-
One of my favorite T-shirts.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ejGMpWA7zhI/R_K0jV5VrRI/AAAAAAAAAC0/NqGEQawdMgc/s320/alvinHolmestee03.jpg)
Mr. Chairman...who sponsored diss bill?
-
That statement by Bridges is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Ironic that Valley is one of the bleakest, unemployed, meth infested cities in the state. Personally I would sign the bill. And also do away with blue laws. They are all stupid.
-
That statement by Bridges is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Ironic that Valley is one of the bleakest, unemployed, meth infested cities in the state. Personally I would sign the bill. And also do away with blue laws. They are all stupid.
No, you just don't understand. Rational, intelligent people can't understand that there's a difference between a 12oz Coor's Light and a 36oz Stone Arrogant Bastard. How could they? It's impossible. I mean, one beer is one beer. Numbers don't lie, sir.
He said larger containers would appeal to young people and would mislead Alabamians who get behind the wheel into thinking they could drive after only having one or two beers.
:rofl:
-
No, you just don't understand. Rational, intelligent people can't understand that there's a difference between a 12oz Coor's Light and a 36oz Stone Arrogant Bastard. How could they? It's impossible. I mean, one beer is one beer. Numbers don't lie, sir.
:rofl:
If his rationale behind alcohol is that it breaks families, then why isn't he banning it altogether? His logic is a crock of shit. He is again another example of a self indoctrinated "bible thumper" giving all of us Christians a bad name. Blaming the alcohol for alcohol abuse and the ramifications from it is no better than the logic used by gun control freaks to ban firearms because of all of the "violence" they breed. People kill people, not guns. People also choose to drink irresponsibly. So ban the beer? Makes perfect sense. :facepalm:
-
If his rationale behind alcohol is that it breaks families, then why isn't he banning it altogether? His logic is a crock of shit. He is again another example of a self indoctrinated "bible thumper" giving all of us Christians a bad name. Blaming the alcohol for alcohol abuse and the ramifications from it is no better than the logic used by gun control freaks to ban firearms because of all of the "violence" they breed. People kill people, not guns. People also choose to drink irresponsibly. So ban the beer? Makes perfect sense. :facepalm:
I completely agree, and would even say that it is even more ridiculous when applied to alcohol. At least a gun is specifically designed to fatally wound a living thing. It can be used by criminals, but it can also be used in law enforcement and self defense. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not specifically designed to be a death weapon.
-
If his rationale behind alcohol is that it breaks families, then why isn't he banning it altogether?
I am in favor.
Fuck a bigger container.
-
Alcohol, on the other hand, is not specifically designed to be a death weapon.
It serves no useful purpose and just has a little side business in death. You know, like a hobby.
Seen too many good people ruined and too many good lives lost for me to give one half of a rancid rat's shit about what motherfucking size container some peckerhead gets to buy.
-
It serves no useful purpose and just has a little side business in death. You know, like a hobby.
Seen too many good people ruined and too many good lives lost for me to give one half of a rancid rat's shit about what motherfucking size container some peckerhead gets to buy.
Well I've been known to cause a few breakups
And I've been known to cause a few births
I can make you new friends
Or get you fired from work.
I've influenced kings and world leaders
I helped Hemingway write like he did
I am medicine and I am poison
I can help you up or make you fall
You had some of the best times
You'll never remember with me
And I can help white people dance.
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_350/12310740240udF4l.jpg)
-
It serves no useful purpose and just has a little side business in death. You know, like a hobby.
Seen too many good people ruined and too many good lives lost for me to give one half of a rancid rat's shit about what motherfucking size container some peckerhead gets to buy.
So you want to take it from me because a few dipshits you know of couldn't handle it properly? Do you know how many things I could apply that logic to in life to reason banning it?
-
It serves no useful purpose and just has a little side business in death. You know, like a hobby.
Seen too many good people ruined and too many good lives lost for me to give one half of a rancid rat's shit about what motherfucking size container some peckerhead gets to buy.
For a guy who rails against the gubmint and its intrustion into your business and life, this is a radical departure.
-
For a guy who rails against the gubmint and its intrustion into your business and life, this is a radical departure.
Was kind of my thought as well.
Gambling, porn, fast food, ANY hobby, luxury cars, sports - let's ban them all. Since they have no function other than entertainment and gluttony right? And I once saw a dude have a heart attack and he ate at McDs all the time, so McD's has to be shut down.
-
Gambling, porn, fast food,
Get the fuck off my Kool-aid.
-
For a guy who rails against the gubmint and its intrustion into your business and life, this is a radical departure.
Radical but needed.
We've attempted this exercise before and no one has been able to provide an answer that met the standard.
What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects?
What legitimate purpose does beer serve?
Nutrition? No.
Improve health? No.
Improve mental clarity? No.
But we need to make sure we can get it in 40 oz bottles. :taunt:
I don't like smoking either, but I can't remember the last time somebody had a few too many cigarettes and smacked his wife and kids around. Don't recall anybody finishing off a pack of Marlboros and drove his car into somebody else and killed them. So smoke up, just don't do it around me.
Alcohol is the refuge of the weak.
I have an occasional drink because it's almost societally mandated (which I honestly find offensive). It pisses me off to be in a business situation and have other feeble-minded yahoos deride me because I don't care to have a beer with them. And there are occasional times I'll have a drink or three at home or with friends.
For the idiotic and absurd arguments about "somebody had a heart attack from McDonalds" or "movies are just for entertainment" please stop being obtuse. Those sham arguments are beneath you.
When McDonald's addiction puts 10,000 people in the ground (number killed in drunk driving crashes in 2009 -- three times the number of soldiers killed in the Gulf wars since 2003), when going to a movie kills 1400 children under the age of 12 (the number of kids killed by drunk drivers in 2009) then I'll call for those things to be ended too.
If you eat too many Big Macs you kill yourself. You don't take others out with you. So I don't give a shit. I do give a shit about 10,000 people and 1500 kids killed. I give a shit about the lives, marriages and careers that are destroyed, stats that don't show up on the sheet.
My position on government's intrusion is so long as it doesn't hurt me, I don't care. Alcohol DOES hurt me so I do. It destroyed my business partner's ability to function to the point that he lost everything, it killed my first wife, it fucked up my own career path early on, it ruined several of my family members and helped squander the legacy my great grandfather left.
It would be 1000000% fine with me if alcohol no longer existed. I don't need it. It serves no constructive purpose.
-
Radical but needed.
We've attempted this exercise before and no one has been able to provide an answer that met the standard.
What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects?
What legitimate purpose does beer serve?
Nutrition? No.
Improve health? No.
Improve mental clarity? No.
But we need to make sure we can get it in 40 oz bottles. :taunt:
I don't like smoking either, but I can't remember the last time somebody had a few too many cigarettes and smacked his wife and kids around. Don't recall anybody finishing off a pack of Marlboros and drove his car into somebody else and killed them. So smoke up, just don't do it around me.
Alcohol is the refuge of the weak.
I have an occasional drink because it's almost societally mandated (which I honestly find offensive). It pisses me off to be in a business situation and have other feeble-minded yahoos deride me because I don't care to have a beer with them. And there are occasional times I'll have a drink or three at home or with friends.
For the idiotic and absurd arguments about "somebody had a heart attack from McDonalds" or "movies are just for entertainment" please stop being obtuse. Those sham arguments are beneath you.
When McDonald's addiction puts 10,000 people in the ground (number killed in drunk driving crashes in 2009 -- three times the number of soldiers killed in the Gulf wars since 2003), when going to a movie kills 1400 children under the age of 12 (the number of kids killed by drunk drivers in 2009) then I'll call for those things to be ended too.
If you eat too many Big Macs you kill yourself. You don't take others out with you. So I don't give a shit. I do give a shit about 10,000 people and 1500 kids killed. I give a shit about the lives, marriages and careers that are destroyed, stats that don't show up on the sheet.
My position on government's intrusion is so long as it doesn't hurt me, I don't care. Alcohol DOES hurt me so I do. It destroyed my business partner's ability to function to the point that he lost everything, it killed my first wife, it fucked up my own career path early on, it ruined several of my family members and helped squander the legacy my great grandfather left.
It would be 1000000% fine with me if alcohol no longer existed. I don't need it. It serves no constructive purpose.
Prohibition was an abject failure. It's being played out again with the non-sensical war on drugs.
-
Prohibition was an abject failure. It's being played out again with the non-sensical war on drugs.
I know.
I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as FUCK isn't bigger motherfucking bottles.
-
I know.
I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as FUCK isn't bigger motherfucking bottles.
The size of the container is irrelevant. Buy one 24oz beer or two 12oz. Either way, people are going to drink it.
-
Radical but needed.
We've attempted this exercise before and no one has been able to provide an answer that met the standard.
What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects?
What legitimate purpose does beer serve?
Nutrition? No.
Improve health? No.
Improve mental clarity? No.
But we need to make sure we can get it in 40 oz bottles. :taunt:
I don't like smoking either, but I can't remember the last time somebody had a few too many cigarettes and smacked his wife and kids around. Don't recall anybody finishing off a pack of Marlboros and drove his car into somebody else and killed them. So smoke up, just don't do it around me.
Alcohol is the refuge of the weak.
I have an occasional drink because it's almost societally mandated (which I honestly find offensive). It pisses me off to be in a business situation and have other feeble-minded yahoos deride me because I don't care to have a beer with them. And there are occasional times I'll have a drink or three at home or with friends.
For the idiotic and absurd arguments about "somebody had a heart attack from McDonalds" or "movies are just for entertainment" please stop being obtuse. Those sham arguments are beneath you.
When McDonald's addiction puts 10,000 people in the ground (number killed in drunk driving crashes in 2009 -- three times the number of soldiers killed in the Gulf wars since 2003), when going to a movie kills 1400 children under the age of 12 (the number of kids killed by drunk drivers in 2009) then I'll call for those things to be ended too.
If you eat too many Big Macs you kill yourself. You don't take others out with you. So I don't give a shit. I do give a shit about 10,000 people and 1500 kids killed. I give a shit about the lives, marriages and careers that are destroyed, stats that don't show up on the sheet.
My position on government's intrusion is so long as it doesn't hurt me, I don't care. Alcohol DOES hurt me so I do. It destroyed my business partner's ability to function to the point that he lost everything, it killed my first wife, it fucked up my own career path early on, it ruined several of my family members and helped squander the legacy my great grandfather left.
It would be 1000000% fine with me if alcohol no longer existed. I don't need it. It serves no constructive purpose.
All I heard is we have a DD the weekend of 8/18.
-
The size of the container is irrelevant. Buy one 24oz beer or two 12oz. Either way, people are going to drink it.
A couple of you have K's hook buried deep in the gullet.
-
Radical but needed.
We've attempted this exercise before and no one has been able to provide an answer that met the standard.
What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects?
What legitimate purpose does beer serve?
Nutrition? No.
Improve health? No.
Improve mental clarity? No.
Not necessarily true.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html
Personal anecdotes make it difficult to distance yourself. My uncle was shot in the face and killed in a convenience store robbery. I don't blame the guns, though.
I think you're overstating the numerical significance of alcohol related deaths.
According to the latest data, these are the leading causes of death.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/15-most-common-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states.htm
1. Diseases of the heart
28.5
2. Malignant tumors 22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4
11. Suicide 1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7
Heart disease and diabetes can most certainly be attributed to poor diets. Ban all food considered unhealthy? The overwhelming majority of chronic lower respiratory disease is caused by smoking. Also, many forms of cancer (malignant tumors) do as well. So yes, cigarettes kill more people than alcohol.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
(http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/behavior.gif)
Only 4.4% of all deaths are due to accidents, or unintentional injuries. That includes everything from plane crashes to breaking your neck from falling off a roof trying to unclog the gutters.
I can't find the numbers that point one way or another, but I have to imagine that traffic accidents account for probably less than a third of these. And of traffic accidents, alcohol is involved in less than a third of those. So we're talking relatively small numbers.
-
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
Only 4.4% of all deaths are due to accidents, or unintentional injuries. That includes everything from plane crashes to breaking your neck from falling off a roof trying to unclog the gutters.
I can't find the numbers that point one way or another, but I have to imagine that traffic accidents account for probably less than a third of these. And of traffic accidents, alcohol is involved in less than a third of those. So we're talking relatively small numbers.
Actually, the link I posted lists breaks it down.
TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, USA 2005
(MVA = Motor Vehicle Accident)
ACCIDENT
PERCENT
(1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 37.5%
(2) Poisoning 19.5%
(3) Falls 16.3%
(4) Drowning 3.0%
(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 2.6%
(6) Medical/Surgical Complication 2.2%
(7) Forces of nature 1.8%
(8) Firearms discharge 0.7%
Other (transport) 2.6%
Other (nontransport) 13.9%
So slightly more than 1/3 of accidental deaths are vehicular.
And according to this
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1113.pdf
Only 22.3% of fatal car accidents involved a .08% BAC or higher.
So all in all, even my estimates were higher than the actual numbers.
-
According to the latest data, these are the leading causes of death.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/15-most-common-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states.htm
Heart disease and diabetes can most certainly be attributed to poor diets. Ban all food considered unhealthy? The overwhelming majority of chronic lower respiratory disease is caused by smoking. Also, many forms of cancer (malignant tumors) do as well. So yes, cigarettes kill more people than alcohol.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html
(http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/behavior.gif)
Only 4.4% of all deaths are due to accidents, or unintentional injuries. That includes everything from plane crashes to breaking your neck from falling off a roof trying to unclog the gutters.
I can't find the numbers that point one way or another, but I have to imagine that traffic accidents account for probably less than a third of these. And of traffic accidents, alcohol is involved in less than a third of those. So we're talking relatively small numbers.
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5 Heart attack never killed an innocent bystander.
2. Malignant tumors 22.8 Tumor never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4 Studies suggest more than half are caused by alcohol.
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0 May have crashed and killed an innocent bystander but not because anybody drank a few too many Diabeetus Lights at McSherry's.
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander, wouldn't remember it it did
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
11. Suicide 1.3 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1 Usually caused by alcohol abuse
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7 Same as alcohol.
You're missing the point. I don't give a shit if you drink lye or suck down draino. Don't care if you smoke 40 packs a day (in your own house where it's not on me). Doesn't bother me if you eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch, dinner, fourth meal, second supper and third snack.
To quote Raising Arizona "You're only hurting yourself with that rambunctious behavior."
Alcohol? You hurt others.
How many families are bankrupted by Whopper addiction?
How many wives have left husbands (or vice versa) because the spouse just couldn't handle his McNuggets and beat the kids when he had too many?
When's the last time you saw a horrific accident because the driver had downed too many Wendy's fries?
None of that is remotely the same.
Hurt yourself? Don't care. Hurt others? Something needs to change.
-
A couple of you have K's hook buried deep in the gullet.
No, he really thinks that. We've had this round and round before.
-
No, he really thinks that. We've had this round and round before.
Yep.
If it were up to me alcohol wouldn't exist in any form other than the rubbing kind.
-
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5 Heart attack never killed an innocent bystander.
2. Malignant tumors 22.8 Tumor never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4 Studies suggest more than half are caused by alcohol.
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0 May have crashed and killed an innocent bystander but not because anybody drank a few too many Diabeetus Lights at McSherry's.
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander, wouldn't remember it it did
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
11. Suicide 1.3 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1 Usually caused by alcohol abuse
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7 Never crashed and killed an innocent bystander.
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7 Same as alcohol.
You're missing the point. I don't give a shit if you drink lye or suck down draino. Don't care if you smoke 40 packs a day (in your own house where it's not on me). Doesn't bother me if you eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch, dinner, fourth meal, second supper and third snack.
To quote Raising Arizona "You're only hurting yourself with that rambunctious behavior."
Alcohol? You hurt others.
How many families are bankrupted by Whopper addiction?
How many wives have left husbands (or vice versa) because the spouse just couldn't handle his McNuggets and beat the kids when he had too many?
When's the last time you saw a horrific accident because the driver had downed too many Wendy's fries?
None of that is remotely the same.
Hurt yourself? Don't care. Hurt others? Something needs to change.
All of those other methods of death DO affect other people. Fast Food places and processed foods have created a nationwide epidemic of heart disease. So should we ban them? I would say that affects innocent bystanders as you put it. I mean, it puts a huge burden on the medical system.
So should we ban guns since it is possible that an innocent bystander COULD be hurt ? You are putting the blame on the alcohol itself and not the people. People make choices. Cigarettes and the western diet have affected far more people adversely and indirectly "ruined families" than beer. You could also say the same about a lot of prescriptions - look at how many people have went apeshit on strong meds and pulled a murder/suicide or drove over the center line of the highway. Ban them right? You can't ban something that most of the population uses responsibly with no harm, to spite the few idiots who had issues before they even touched the stuff.
-
All of those other methods of death DO affect other people. Fast Food places and processed foods have created a nationwide epidemic of heart disease. So should we ban them? I would say that affects innocent bystanders as you put it. I mean, it puts a huge burden on the medical system.
So should we ban guns since it is possible that an innocent bystander COULD be hurt ? You are putting the blame on the alcohol itself and not the people. People make choices. Cigarettes and the western diet have affected far more people adversely and indirectly "ruined families" than beer. You could also say the same about a lot of prescriptions - look at how many people have went apeshit on strong meds and pulled a murder/suicide or drove over the center line of the highway. Ban them right? You can't ban something that most of the population uses responsibly with no harm, to spite the few idiots who had issues before they even touched the stuff.
Fuck a MONKEY are you being purposely obtuse?
There is evidence that shit in Big Macs causes heart disease. If I choose to eat one I do so with that knowledge. Eating that Big Mac isn't going to impair my senses to the point that I run my car into a wall, though. It's not going to make me spend all my money and abandon my family.
Lots of stuff is bad for us. We know it. If we choose to partake, we're hurting ourselves. We're not hurting other people, people we don't know, people who did nothing to deserve the carnage we rack up.
But even a Big Mac serves some moderate function. If you're starving and eat one it will delay your death.
Booze gonna do that for you?
It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil. Period.
-
Fuck a MONKEY are you being purposely obtuse?
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/obtuse.jpg)
-
Fuck a MONKEY are you being purposely obtuse?
There is evidence that shit in Big Macs causes heart disease. If I choose to eat one I do so with that knowledge. Eating that Big Mac isn't going to impair my senses to the point that I run my car into a wall, though. It's not going to make me spend all my money and abandon my family.
Lots of stuff is bad for us. We know it. If we choose to partake, we're hurting ourselves. We're not hurting other people, people we don't know, people who did nothing to deserve the carnage we rack up.
But even a Big Mac serves some moderate function. If you're starving and eat one it will delay your death.
Booze gonna do that for you?
It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil. Period.
Guns. You are opposed to gun control, no?
Innocent bystanders NEVER die from bullets? My dead uncle begs to differ.
-
Yep.
If it were up to me alcohol wouldn't exist in any form other than the rubbing kind.
Ok, carry on. :facepalm:
-
Not to mention what is blindingly obvious to anyone with any cognitive sense of logic whatsoever.
Banning larger containers does fuck all to limit or prevent any alcohol related deaths, addictions, etc., so all of this conversation is completely pointless. All it does is limit the free market for what the types of beers that are available for adult consumption.
I would bet my last nickel that of all alcohol related deaths, abusive alcoholics, etc., that a vast, vast majority of them are getting boozed on Heaven Hill, or Aristocrat, or some other dirt cheap liquor. Or at least Mad Dog 20/20 or Nattie Light. The college kids are not funnelling Dogfish Head Craft Brewery AprilHop IPAs. I guarantee you they're involved in less than 0.01% of accidents as well.
-
Guns. You are opposed to gun control, no?
Innocent bystanders NEVER die from bullets? My dead uncle begs to differ.
Guns are already controlled somewhat.
And no, I'm not opposed to it. I'd be in favor of background checks more extensive than we have now. I'd be in favor of requiring those purchasing guns to complete safety training courses before taking possession of the weapons. I'd be in favor of limiting the number and type of firearms people can have. Be in favor of taking guns away from anyone convicted of a felony, anyone found to have used a firearm in an unsafe manner (shooting into the sky for New Year's, for instance), removing guns from anyone discovered to have stored them improperly. I'm in favor of fucking somebody up sentencing wise if they have an unregistered/unlicensed gun in their possession.
But STILL, nobody's ever bought one too many pistols and crashed into a family, killing everybody.
Yes, deranged people get guns. But the guns themselves DO NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF THE USER TO FUNCTION.
Comparison? Fails.
-
Not to mention what is blindingly obvious to anyone with any cognitive sense of logic whatsoever.
Banning larger containers does fuck all to limit or prevent any alcohol related deaths, addictions, etc., so all of this conversation is completely pointless. All it does is limit the free market for what the types of beers that are available for adult consumption.
I would bet my last nickel that of all alcohol related deaths, abusive alcoholics, etc., that a vast, vast majority of them are getting boozed on Heaven Hill, or Aristocrat, or some other dirt cheap liquor. Or at least Mad Dog 20/20 or Nattie Light. The college kids are not funnelling Dogfish Head Craft Brewery AprilHop IPAs. I guarantee you they're involved in less than 0.01% of accidents as well.
But that's not all it's about now, is it? We've freed the gotdamn hops!! Now you can get your Natural Light in 40s.
Awesome!
My point was that this entire exercise is asinine. Bigger containers aren't the answer to anything. It's stupid. If I had one of those guns I'd probably use it on the Free the Hops guy.
Hey, we've got poison on sale! And now it comes in a gallon jug. Get ya some.
-
Guns are already controlled somewhat.
And no, I'm not opposed to it. I'd be in favor of background checks more extensive than we have now. I'd be in favor of requiring those purchasing guns to complete safety training courses before taking possession of the weapons. I'd be in favor of limiting the number and type of firearms people can have. Be in favor of taking guns away from anyone convicted of a felony, anyone found to have used a firearm in an unsafe manner (shooting into the sky for New Year's, for instance), removing guns from anyone discovered to have stored them improperly. I'm in favor of fucking somebody up sentencing wise if they have an unregistered/unlicensed gun in their possession.
But STILL, nobody's ever bought one too many pistols and crashed into a family, killing everybody.
Yes, deranged people get guns. But the guns themselves DO NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF THE USER TO FUNCTION.
Comparison? Fails.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Fuck a MONKEY are you being purposely obtuse?
There is evidence that shit in Big Macs causes heart disease. If I choose to eat one I do so with that knowledge. Eating that Big Mac isn't going to impair my senses to the point that I run my car into a wall, though. It's not going to make me spend all my money and abandon my family.
Lots of stuff is bad for us. We know it. If we choose to partake, we're hurting ourselves. We're not hurting other people, people we don't know, people who did nothing to deserve the carnage we rack up.
But even a Big Mac serves some moderate function. If you're starving and eat one it will delay your death.
Booze gonna do that for you?
It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil. Period.
Alcohol serves a function as being recreational and can also be medicinal if used properly (red wine, certain beers) due to the polyphenols that exist in the ingredients and sometimes becoming magnified with the fermentation process. You missed Wes' point that prohibition was a huge failure on many levels and if anything, made the issue worse. More people were killed because of alcohol during that time on average than non prohibition times. (before and after) Prohibition created a black market much like drugs today and increased gang warfare. You ban the shit, and watch how lovely things hit the fan and splatter. And people will still get their booze and the possibility of driving drunk or beating your wife still exists. Banning it solves nothing.
BTW - it IS illegal already to get boozed/drunk and drive. It's also illegal to run over someone under the influence.
-
Alcohol serves a function as being recreational and can also be medicinal if used properly (red wine, certain beers) due to the polyphenols that exist in the ingredients and sometimes becoming magnified with the fermentation process. You missed Wes' point that prohibition was a huge failure on many levels and if anything, made the issue worse. More people were killed because of alcohol during that time on average than non prohibition times. (before and after) Prohibition created a black market much like drugs today and increased gang warfare. You ban the shit, and watch how lovely things hit the fan and splatter. And people will still get their booze and the possibility of driving drunk or beating your wife still exists. Banning it solves nothing.
BTW - it IS illegal already to get boozed/drunk and drive. It's also illegal to run over someone under the influence.
Yes. I know prohibition failed. Already agreed.
But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles.
-
Yes. I know prohibition failed. Already agreed.
But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles.
It definitely isn't smaller bottles, either.
-
It definitely isn't smaller bottles, either.
Werd.
-
Yes. I know prohibition failed. Already agreed.
But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles.
Bigger cans?
-
Bigger cans?
Bigger kegs.
-
This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side.
Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't. And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too.
I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)
"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them? Why fuck no. There would be a national basketball ban. People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs. The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.
"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed? It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined? Fuck all.
If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade. In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly).
It's useless, pointless and weak.
-
This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side.
Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't. And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too.
I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)
"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them? Why fuck no. There would be a national basketball ban. People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs. The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.
"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed? It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined? Fuck all.
If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade. In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly).
It's useless, pointless and weak.
On any other topic and coming from someone else, you would have a field day with the weak "argument" you've put forth in this thread.
-
This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side.
I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)
I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".
-
I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".
I agree.
I want my cocaine back.
-
This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side.
Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't. And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too.
I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)
"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them? Why fuck no. There would be a national basketball ban. People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs. The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.
"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT. So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed? It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined? Fuck all.
If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade. In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly).
It's useless, pointless and weak.
Again, I don't really have to have a valid reason in your eyes to enjoy it. My right to enjoy it responsibly (as long as I am not harming anyone in the process of enjoying it) outweighs your want to ban it. End of story. I can't you of all people would want this kind of govt intrusion. My guess is that some event spurred this way of thinking with you since it's very atypical of you. Harming someone in the process of enjoying it? Already ILLEGAL.
-
I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".
Just so we're clear:
(http://www.justinbuzzard.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pacifier.jpg)
If it were ANY other product, any product at all and that product were tied to the addictive properties, the level of impariment, the significant health damage and the potential for carnage? It would be banned everybody would be on board.
But cai'nt nobody take muh dayum beer. I wants it inna 40 pound box, too.
My argument is perfect. It's not weak.
Your asinine comparisons to guns? Ridiculous efforts to equate alcohol to Big Macs? Complete and total failure to derive one single societal benefit that has any possibility of outweighing the pervasive negative effects? All pathetic and some of the weakest efforts I've ever seen.
It all boils down to the absurd point above, which can be condensed thusly:
AH LAHK MUH GADDAM BEER, AN' I AIN'T GONNA STOP DRANKIN' IT.
Doesn't matter who it kills. It's okay becaus YOU like it. Worst argument ever.
Fuck all. Just. Fuck. All.
-
The problem here is: (and no offense Kaos, seriously) Kaos can't separate his personal hatred and reasons for hating Alcohol to make a logical conclusion on the matter.
-
The problem here is: (and no offense Kaos, seriously) Kaos can't separate his personal hatred and reasons for hating Alcohol to make a logical conclusion on the matter.
My conclusion is PERFECTLY logical.
It provides no benefits. It causes harm.
I'm still waiting for one single thing, one benefit alcohol provides that makes it worth the utter carnage it causes. You won't because you cant. You'll make every other argument in the world, stomp your feet and end up crying about your pacifier. But you won't and can't show me a risk/reward relationship that makes alcohol worth the risk.
War? Yep. I get it. People die.
NASA? People died to get us to the moon. It was worth it.
Dangerous jobs like underwater welding? Sure. It's a risk.
I even get NASCAR. You run the risk of dying every time you get in there but you do it for reward and entertainment.
Booze? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT. I don't give a fiddling fuck how much you like your afternoon brew and the numbing effect it has on your senses. Your enjoyment isn't worth the lives it takes. Not today, not tomorrow and not ever.
-
Just so we're clear:
(http://www.justinbuzzard.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pacifier.jpg)
If it were ANY other product, any product at all and that product were tied to the addictive properties, the level of impariment, the significant health damage and the potential for carnage? It would be banned everybody would be on board.
But cai'nt nobody take muh dayum beer. I wants it inna 40 pound box, too.
My argument is perfect. It's not weak.
Your asinine comparisons to guns? Ridiculous efforts to equate alcohol to Big Macs? Complete and total failure to derive one single societal benefit that has any possibility of outweighing the pervasive negative effects? All pathetic and some of the weakest efforts I've ever seen.
It all boils down to the absurd point above, which can be condensed thusly:
AH LAHK MUH GADDAM BEER, AN' I AIN'T GONNA STOP DRANKIN' IT.
Doesn't matter who it kills. It's okay becaus YOU like it. Worst argument ever.
Fuck all. Just. Fuck. All.
Now YOU'RE being obtuse. And you can stop with the redneck broad brush. You have no right to ban a product that is safe and harmless when used responsibly, because of a few who abuse it in a harmful way. AWK is right - you have a personal hatred for the stuff for some reason and objectively is getting tossed out the window. There are TONS of things that are safe until abused. You certainly don't go banning anything that meets that criteria. People get stressed out, over work and get very little sleep and cross the center line - you gonna ban insomnia and 60 hour work weeks?
-
I'm still waiting for one single thing, one benefit alcohol provides that makes it worth the utter carnage it causes.
Helps fat chicks get laid.
-
You're utilizing a harm vs. benefits analysis, and suggesting that something which causes more harm than good should be banned.
I don't know the statistics on deaths by gun, but I would imagine more people are killed with guns illegally than people killed with guns legally (self defense and law enforcement).
Using your logic, guns should be banned because more people use them in a harmful manner than people who use them in a non-harmful manner.
-
You're utilizing a harm vs. benefits analysis, and suggesting that something which causes more harm than good should be banned.
I don't know the statistics on deaths by gun, but I would imagine more people are killed with guns illegally than people killed with guns legally (self defense and law enforcement).
Using your logic, guns should be banned because more people use them in a harmful manner than people who use them in a non-harmful manner.
ZACK LEE
Do you know how many things would be banned with that stone aged logic?
-
Now YOU'RE being obtuse. And you can stop with the redneck broad brush. You have no right to ban a product that is safe and harmless when used responsibly, because of a few who abuse it in a harmful way. AWK is right - you have a personal hatred for the stuff for some reason and objectively is getting tossed out the window. There are TONS of things that are safe until abused. You certainly don't go banning anything that meets that criteria. People get stressed out, over work and get very little sleep and cross the center line - you gonna ban insomnia and 60 hour work weeks?
Show me what benefit alcohol provides.
"I like it" is not a benefit. RWS likes fucking goats.
You're at strike 41 so far and haven't come close to touching the pitches. You're flailing at air.
Still waiting.
Will be here a while.
-
ZACK LEE
Do you know how many things would be banned with that stone aged logic?
No goddamit. Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago.
A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others. '
If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point.
You have none.
Strike 44. I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.
-
I even get NASCAR. You run the risk of dying every time you get in there but you do it for reward and entertainment.
How the fuck is this different? You've determined that entertainment value, is really no value whatsoever, remember? Basketballs and such.
And your argument that "At least if you're starving a Big Mac will prolong your life that much more." And beer will not? There is grain and water in beer.
No goddamit. Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago.
A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others. '
If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point.
You have none.
Strike 44. I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.
So by Kaos law of logic, things can only be harmful if their ingestion causes impairment.
Guns aren't dangerous because they're not narcotic? OK...
-
No goddamit. Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago.
A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others. '
If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point.
You have none.
Strike 44. I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.
You don't get to make the law of the land as you see fit per your personal opinions.
And NO inanimate object in and of itself can impair someone. It takes action or abuse by the dumb person for it to be harmful.
ABUSE and HARMFUL behavior because of alcohol is already illegal. What part of that aren't you getting?
-
How the fuck is this different? You've determined that entertainment value, is really no value whatsoever, remember? Basketballs and such.
NASCAR drivers don't kill thousands of spectators. It's not that hard, Chizad.
And your argument that "At least if you're starving a Big Mac will prolong your life that much more." And beer will not? There is grain and water in beer.So by Kaos law of logic, things can only be harmful if their ingestion causes impairment.
Guns aren't dangerous because they're not narcotic? OK...
Beer won't prolong your life. In fact it may hasten your death because of the diuretic affect. Nice try, though.
Guns are dangerous. Never denied that at all. You keep bouncing back to that argument as if its your Holy Grail, but it's absolutely ridiculous and has zero merit.
A person can't sit down at a bar, buy six or seven pistols, get in the car and be so impaired by said purchases that he plows through a wall, runs over a family of four, or otherwise does harm to himself or others. Until the guns themselves cause harm to a person's state of mind, his ability to function, his consciousness or his decision-making abilities this is a dead fucking duck and you can quit yanking its feathers.
-
You don't get to make the law of the land as you see fit per your personal opinions.
And NO inanimate object in and of itself can impair someone. It takes action or abuse by the dumb person for it to be harmful.
ABUSE and HARMFUL behavior because of alcohol is already illegal. What part of that aren't you getting?
Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.
Never going to get one.
Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it.
Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times. Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.
-
Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.
Never going to get one.
Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it.
Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times. Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.
Why is a product's benefit to society the standard for legality?
-
Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.
Never going to get one.
Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it.
Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times. Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.
Pffft
-
Beer won't prolong your life. In fact it may hasten your death because of the diuretic affect. Nice try, though.
O RLY?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/25/my-take-what-i-learned-from-my-46-day-beer-only-fast/
Guns are dangerous. Never denied that at all. You keep bouncing back to that argument as if its your Holy Grail, but it's absolutely ridiculous and has zero merit.
Hilariously followed by:
A person can't sit down at a bar, buy six or seven pistols, get in the car and be so impaired by said purchases that he plows through a wall, runs over a family of four, or otherwise does harm to himself or others. Until the guns themselves cause harm to a person's state of mind, his ability to function, his consciousness or his decision-making abilities this is a dead fucking duck and you can quit yanking its feathers.
So it's the ingestion you have a problem with? Because they aren't exactly the same thing, the argument is irrelevant? No, you can't buy any guns at a bar, because that's not where guns are sold. You probably can't buy beer at a gun store either. But wherever you buy it, you can get in your car and proceed with a drive-by taking out hundreds of innocent bystanders. The guns themselves don't kill people. The beer itself doesn't kill people. People abusing them and making poor decisions with them, does.
This is seriously the worst argument on any topic I have ever seen by anyone ever.
-
No goddamit. Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago.
A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others. '
If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point.
You have none.
Strike 44. I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.
I hope about 22 of those strikes are yours.
Throwing the argument out doesn't make it invalid.
-
It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil. Period.
Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times. Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.
So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?
Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23
God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15
Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21
I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).
-
So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?
Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23
God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15
Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21
I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).
From now on I am referring to alcohol as evil juice.
-
A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.
Whereas a can of Miller Lite, in and of itself, jumps into my car and drives it recklessly on the wrong side of the highway? Or forces itself down my throat in such quantities that my abilities are greatly impaired?
You're missing one important thing: choice. Just like I can choose to irresponsibly and illegally use a gun, I can also choose to irresponsibly and illegally use alcohol. Doesn't mean that I have to use it in that manner, and the mere presence of alcohol as a legal choice doesn't mean that I will. It's all about how you choose to use it.
Your argument assumes that alcohol can not be responsibly used, and that it will always result in harmful aftermath; that's simply not the case.
All of your examples (such as a person buying 6 beers in a bar and then driving) require that the person make a secondary choice aside from merely drinking alcohol. Buying 6 pistols doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to shoot a pistol at someone can. Drinking 6 beers doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to drive after doing so can.
It's not the alcohol itself that is killing anyone; it's the choices that are made after alcohol consumption. Similarly, it's not a gun itself that kills anyone; it's a person's choice to shoot a gun.
-
What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects?
Why do you hate fat chicks?
-
Why is a product's benefit to society the standard for legality?
Didn't say legal. It is legal.
I'd prefer it all to be destroyed and the ability to make it forgotten.
I'm not an idiot, the shit is way too entrenched now for any legalization efforts to succeed. It's not going away.
I'm merely asking why it's necessary. And no one can ever, ever, ever answer that.
It's not.
And since it kills people (proven), addicts them (proven), destroys families and careers (proven) I just have to wonder why it's so vehemently defended.
The anti-smoking push has worked better than expected. It's a brilliant campaign that's taken something that used to be considered normal and routine and made those who do it pariahs.
At some point the same tactics will be used to shame people out of drinking. I'll be on that bus if I'm around to see it come to pass.
-
Hilariously followed by:
So it's the ingestion you have a problem with? Because they aren't exactly the same thing, the argument is irrelevant? No, you can't buy any guns at a bar, because that's not where guns are sold. You probably can't buy beer at a gun store either. But wherever you buy it, you can get in your car and proceed with a drive-by taking out hundreds of innocent bystanders. The guns themselves don't kill people. The beer itself doesn't kill people. People abusing them and making poor decisions with them, does.
This is seriously the worst argument on any topic I have ever seen by anyone ever.
I can't help it if you flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Does ownership of a gun cause physical impairment or make you do things you would not otherwise do by interfering with your mental acuity or ability to respond coherently? When that happens, get back to me.
Otherwise? I already 10-4'd ya.
-
So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?
Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23
God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15
Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21
I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).
Not the same thing at all.
Jesus didn't hit the road in his souped up donkey and run over anybody.
Your point is out of bounds and yet ANOTHER swing and miss. Not even close.
-
Whereas a can of Miller Lite, in and of itself, jumps into my car and drives it recklessly on the wrong side of the highway? Or forces itself down my throat in such quantities that my abilities are greatly impaired?
You're missing one important thing: choice. Just like I can choose to irresponsibly and illegally use a gun, I can also choose to irresponsibly and illegally use alcohol. Doesn't mean that I have to use it in that manner, and the mere presence of alcohol as a legal choice doesn't mean that I will. It's all about how you choose to use it.
Your argument assumes that alcohol can not be responsibly used, and that it will always result in harmful aftermath; that's simply not the case.
All of your examples (such as a person buying 6 beers in a bar and then driving) require that the person make a secondary choice aside from merely drinking alcohol. Buying 6 pistols doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to shoot a pistol at someone can. Drinking 6 beers doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to drive after doing so can.
It's not the alcohol itself that is killing anyone; it's the choices that are made after alcohol consumption. Similarly, it's not a gun itself that kills anyone; it's a person's choice to shoot a gun.
Stupid argument and completely invalid.
Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment. It interferes with a person's motor skills, ability to make rational judgments, ability to discern reality. It numbs the senses, slows reaction times. Even when used in moderation it causes damage to a person's internal organs.
Does every one who drinks choose to do something stupid? Nope. But if you HAVE been drinking, your ability to make that choice is diminished.
Everybody drives better when they have just a little buzz. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people walk out after a beer or two or three, get in the car and drive off. Whether they want to admit it or not, that FIRST fucking beer interfered with their ability to react and reason.
When holding a gun causes those impairments then by all means, let's talk.
Alcohol serves no purpose. Everything else on earth serves one. Just not that.
If you choose to drink alcohol, you are choosing impairment. Period.
I occasionally choose it myself. Unlike many of you, I don't need a goddam 44 oz bottle to make it work. And I don't care if I ever do or don't again. It has no place in my life.
You're now 10-4'd too.
-
Stupid argument and completely invalid.
Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment. It interferes with a person's motor skills, ability to make rational judgments, ability to discern reality. It numbs the senses, slows reaction times.
When holding a gun causes those impairments then by all means, let's talk.
If you choose to drink alcohol, you are choosing impairment. Period.
You're now 10-4'd too.
When I stay up until 2am playing videogames, I've chosen impairment at work the next day.
Imbibing alcohol does not automatically cause drastic, irrational accidents to occur. For example, I can drink three glasses of wine and still be in control of my actions. I can drink 40oz of beer and still be in control of my actions. I am still well-aware at that point that I need to hand my keys to somebody sober.
It's not impairment that makes something unnecessary.
-
Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment.
Impairment by itself doesn't kill anyone. It's the choice to do something while impaired that can result in someone's death.
Unless you're suggesting that alcohol, upon the very first sip, makes people go certifiably insane and unable to control their actions, then you still have to address this issue of choice.
-
When I stay up until 2am playing videogames, I've chosen impairment at work the next day.
Imbibing alcohol does not automatically cause drastic, irrational accidents to occur. For example, I can drink three glasses of wine and still be in control of my actions. I can drink 40oz of beer and still be in control of my actions. I am still well-aware at that point that I need to hand my keys to somebody sober.
It's not impairment that makes something unnecessary.
And there's the fucking problem in a nutshell.
You THINK you can. But you're wrong.
-
I'm merely asking why it's necessary. And no one can ever, ever, ever answer that.
It's not.
And since it kills people (proven), addicts them (proven), destroys families and careers (proven) I just have to wonder why it's so vehemently defended.
There's a lot that's unnecessary, but we still choose to partake.
Football is unnecessary. It often leads to injuries, requires a tremendous amount of time away from home, encourages dissension among citizens, and promotes violence.
-
Impairment by itself doesn't kill anyone. It's the choice to do something while impaired that can result in someone's death.
Unless you're suggesting that alcohol, upon the very first sip, makes people go certifiably insane and unable to control their actions, then you still have to address this issue of choice.
I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes.
Still waiting.
I'll hang up and listen.
-
There's a lot that's unnecessary, but we still choose to partake.
Football is unnecessary. It often leads to injuries, requires a tremendous amount of time away from home, encourages dissension among citizens, and promotes violence.
When going to a football game for too long causes you to lose control of your bodily functions, pass out and endanger yourself and others then we can talk.
Until then I'll be waiting on a benefit of alcohol.
(Hint: There isn't one)
-
And there's the fucking problem in a nutshell.
You THINK you can. But you're wrong.
What do you mean?
Are you saying I cannot by any means give my keys away?
I've never driven drunk. I've never made out or had sex with anyone besides my wife after drinking. I've never gotten into a fight because of alcohol. I've never made any of these poor decisions you're referring because of alcohol.
-
I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes.
Still waiting.
I'll hang up and listen.
Oh is that what you're waiting on?
Over the last five years, the health benefits of moderate drinking have been widely celebrated in the headlines. To those who think everything enjoyable must be bad for you, this news might seem like a dream come true.
Of course, there are many caveats - and these studies don't indicate that teetotalers should take up drinking or that infrequent drinkers should start drinking more. The operative word here is drinking in moderation.
Studies show, for example, that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21.
The strongest medical evidence exists for the link between moderate drinking and a reduced risk of heart disease.
Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, an internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, was the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine study examining the roles of drinking patterns and heart disease that found, after 12 year of follow-up, that men who consumed alcohol between three and seven days a week had fewer heart attacks than men who drank once a week.
Below, Mukamal discusses the risk and benefits of moderate drinking.
Do we know why moderate drinking lowers heart disease risk? We think that a lot of the benefits of alcohol are on the blood vessels and on blockages in the arteries to the heart and to the brain. This might be related to alcohol's effect on the good cholesterol, the HDL cholesterol.
In fact, alcohol affects HDL levels just about as strongly as any other lifestyle factor. People also think that alcohol may lower heart attack risk by acting as a blood thinner.
What are some of the other health benefits associated with moderate drinking? A wide variety of health effects have been attributed to moderate drinking. A lower risk of diabetes has been seen in women and men.
There actually have been experiments done in which alcohol was administered over a couple of months to people without diabetes. In those studies, most of which have been conducted in women interestingly, it looks like moderate drinking improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
It may actually lower insulin levels altogether and may prevent diabetes through that mechanism.
More recently we've done some work on moderate drinking and dementia. We looked at a group of older adults in the United States - average age was in the mid-70s - and found a reduced risk.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/3968.php
Plus this section of Harvard's website:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/alcohol-full-story/index.html
-
I don't have to address shit until somebody (after, what, 10 years now?) gives me some legitimate benefit that alcohol provides that in any way outweighs the damage it causes.
There doesn't have to be a benefit to a product in order for it to be legal or morally acceptable. If researchers want to develop a food that has no taste and absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever, it would have no benefit, yet there would be no legitimate reason to make it illegal or otherwise be against it morally. If people choose to consume something that is useless, that should be their choice.
This means that the issue boils down to whether it's inherently dangerous and can not be used responsibly. If it can be used responsibly without harm to others, then this means that one must make a choice to use it irresponsibly. Why take away the responsible choices of others just because a portion of society can not make those same responsible choices?
-
There doesn't have to be a benefit to a product in order for it to be legal or morally acceptable. If researchers want to develop a food that has no taste and absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever, it would have no benefit, yet there would be no legitimate reason to make it illegal or otherwise be against it morally. If people choose to consume something that is useless, that should be their choice.
This means that the issue boils down to whether it's inherently dangerous and can not be used responsibly. If it can be used responsibly without harm to others, then this means that one must make a choice to use it irresponsibly. Why take away the responsible choices of others just because a portion of society can not make those same responsible choices?
The problem is that this is turning into a science thread but no one here has any statistics or science to back up their claims.
Kaos disagrees that it can be used responsibly. As he stated earlier, he claims that one drop can be a problem. Unless you can convince him that he is wrong with his assertion, this thread is going no where.
-
And there's the fudgeing problem in a nutshell.
You THINK you can. But you're wrong.
Kind of like when Kaos gets behind a keyboard. Logic, reason, and sanity fly out the window. It's a lot like being drunk actually. In either case the subject thinks they are a master debater, but they're really just yelling loudly "NO!!!! I'M RIGHT!!!! YOU'RE STUPID!!!!"
-
What do you mean?
Are you saying I cannot by any means give my keys away?
I've never driven drunk. I've never made out or had sex with anyone besides my wife after drinking. I've never gotten into a fight because of alcohol. I've never made any of these poor decisions you're referring because of alcohol.
Congratulations. Maybe you're the exception.
You're like the snake handler who pulled his hand from the box unbitten and now says anybody can stick their hand in there.
Now you just have to hope that the internal damage doesn't get you. Since it's so good for you and all, you don't have to worry about damage to the liver or other internal organs.
-
Kind of like when Kaos gets behind a keyboard. Logic, reason, and sanity fly out the window. It's a lot like being drunk actually. In either case the subject thinks they are a master debater, but they're really just yelling loudly "NO!!!! I'M RIGHT!!!! YOU'RE STUPID!!!!"
THS has come the closest to answering the basic question. He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about.
He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links. I can work with that.
It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.
The rest of you? Christ. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....
-
THS has come the closest to answering the basic question. He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about.
He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links. I can work with that.
It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.
The rest of you? Christ. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....
Pretty sure I answered it almost immediately after you asked. You chose to ignore it.
Not necessarily true.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html
-
THS has come the closest to answering the basic question. He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about.
He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links. I can work with that.
It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.
The rest of you? Christ. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....
This is the best I could find on a quick search. It's out of date ('07) but the gist is that the beverage industry provides a heap of jobs and a lot of money (and taxes, which is the real reason it will never be banned).
http://www.discus.org/pdf/ATT2_Economic_Contribution.pdf
It also appears to be recession proof.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121277/drinking-habits-steady-amid-recession.aspx
-
THS has come the closest to answering the basic question. He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about.
He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links. I can work with that.
It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.
The rest of you? Christ. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....
Here's the problem that I see. You don't want to stick to one argument. When someone appropriately addresses one, you switch to the other and make yourself a moving target. Of course we're going to whiff when someone snatches the ball away before it gets to home plate.
The two arguments that you keep flip-flopping between are A.) Alcohol has no benefit, and B.) Alcohol harms people other than those who consume it. When we address A, you cite B. When we handle B, you revert back to A and claim we never addressed it.
So, to address both at once:
Just because something has no ascertainable benefit does not mean that it should be made illegal or viewed as morally reprehensible. As I mentioned in my last post, a tasteless food void of any nutrition may have no benefit, but if someone wants to create and sell it, they should be able to do so. The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be banned by law. So the alleged absence of the ascertainable benefits of alcohol should have no effect on its legality.
This only leaves your other go-to argument, which is the dangerous effects of alcohol. Every example of alcohol's harmful effects to others that you've presented have required that the drinker make a choice after consuming alcohol. This has already been elaborated upon, but as mentioned above, you conveniently reverted back to your other stance in order to avoid addressing the issue of choice.
-
This is the best I could find on a quick search. It's out of date ('07) but the gist is that the beverage industry provides a heap of jobs and a lot of money (and taxes, which is the real reason it will never be banned).
http://www.discus.org/pdf/ATT2_Economic_Contribution.pdf
It also appears to be recession proof.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121277/drinking-habits-steady-amid-recession.aspx
Give not one shit about its economic value. Worst response of the day.
We put people in jail for profiting from things proven to kill.
-
As I mentioned in my last post, a tasteless food void of any nutrition may have no benefit, but if someone wants to create and sell it, they should be able to do so. The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be banned by law. So the alleged absence of the ascertainable benefits of alcohol should have no effect on its legality.
Let alone the food doesn't have to be tasteless, because beer has a taste. A taste that people who drink beer enjoy. Or they wouldn't drink it. Unfathomable to Kaos who thinks it's terrible, but people do enjoy the taste of beer, believe it or not.
For that reason, it's no different from the Big Mac discussed before. Or a Doritos Locos taco. Or Sweet Tarts. Or whatever the hell it is that you consume with no expectation of nutritional value, but rather for the enjoyment of consuming that product.
Coffee is perhaps a better example. It tastes good, AND has the added mind-altering effect of energizing you. Beer has the exact opposite effect. It tastes good and helps you relax. But COFFEE NEVER MADE ANYONE PLOW THROUGH A CHILDRENS' HOSPITAL.
And that's to your other point. You have to use it irresponsibly for that to be an issue.
And by the way? Texting while driving can impair you from properly operating a motor vehicle. Adjusting the car radio. Eating a ham sandwich. Basically anything done simultaneously while driving makes it inherently a danger to your ability to drive. Ban ham sandwiches?
-
You people are really bad at this.
I've stayed in the same place.
Booze provides no value that can offset its harm.
Same position. Never changes. Can't be refuted. Your attempts to do so are puny.
I've never said it should be illegal. If I ruled the universe it would not exist. I don't rule the universe (yet).
Asked somebody, anybody to explain why it should by showing a positive that offsets the negatives. Nobody has. Nobody will.
I'm not campaigning to take your precious beer away. I find the tantrums and convoluted rationalizations used to justify that which can't be legitimately justified hilarious. But I'm not calling for it to be illegal or saying consumption is immoral. Those are sham arguments you created to feel better about defending the indefensible. I definitely didnt make them.
You expect me to have sympathy because you couldn't buy beer in 55 gallon drums? Boo fucking HOO. Suck my ass. I'm going to celebrate because some peckerhead squandered a portion of his life agitating for larger bottles? Fuck him and his pony.
What I've seen in this thread is exactly what I deal with on a regular basis as the usual non-drinker in social or business settings.
"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"
If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade. I'm viewed with suspicion. They can't take the first no at face value.
Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity. Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink. That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver.
I've heard all the justifications before. And I dont ask the question I asked here.
Same thing just happened. I wish alcohol didn't exist. That morphed into declarations that I don't get to decide, people can choose whatever they want, booze is good, I'm irrational, I can't make it illegal or declare it immoral. Just a big mass of insecurity on your part manifested in poorly constructed arguments.
-
Let alone the food doesn't have to be tasteless, because beer has a taste. A taste that people who drink beer enjoy. Or they wouldn't drink it. Unfathomable to Kaos who thinks it's terrible, but people do enjoy the taste of beer, believe it or not.
For that reason, it's no different from the Big Mac discussed before. Or a Doritos Locos taco. Or Sweet Tarts. Or whatever the hell it is that you consume with no expectation of nutritional value, but rather for the enjoyment of consuming that product.
Coffee is perhaps a better example. It tastes good, AND has the added mind-altering effect of energizing you. Beer has the exact opposite effect. It tastes good and helps you relax. But COFFEE NEVER MADE ANYONE PLOW THROUGH A CHILDRENS' HOSPITAL.
And that's to your other point. You have to use it irresponsibly for that to be an issue.
And by the way? Texting while driving can impair you from properly operating a motor vehicle. Adjusting the car radio. Eating a ham sandwich. Basically anything done simultaneously while driving makes it inherently a danger to your ability to drive. Ban ham sandwiches?
I'm typing this while driving so pardon the mistakes.
Big buttload of hysterical fail here.
If you like the taste so much drink a non-alcoholic brew.
Solves everything.
What? You won't? Strike 4&.
-
You people are really bad at this.
I've stayed in the same place.
Booze provides no value that can offset its harm.
Same position. Never changes. Can't be refuted. Your attempts to do so are puny.
I've never said it should be illegal. If I ruled the universe it would not exist. I don't rule the universe (yet).
Asked somebody, anybody to explain why it should by showing a positive that offsets the negatives. Nobody has. Nobody will.
I'm not campaigning to take your precious beer away. I find the tantrums and convoluted rationalizations used to justify that which can't be legitimately justified hilarious. But I'm not calling for it to be illegal or saying consumption is immoral. Those are sham arguments you created to feel better about defending the indefensible. I definitely didnt make them.
You expect me to have sympathy because you couldn't buy beer in 55 gallon drums? Boo fucking HOO. Suck my ass. I'm going to celebrate because some peckerhead squandered a portion of his life agitating for larger bottles? Fuck him and his pony.
What I've seen in this thread is exactly what I deal with on a regular basis as the usual non-drinker in social or business settings.
"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"
If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade. I'm viewed with suspicion. They can't take the first no at face value.
Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity. Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink. That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver.
I've heard all the justifications before. And I dont ask the question I asked here.
Same thing just happened. I wish alcohol didn't exist. That morphed into declarations that I don't get to decide, people can choose whatever they want, booze is good, I'm irrational, I can't make it illegal or declare it immoral. Just a big mass of insecurity on your part manifested in poorly constructed arguments.
What do you think of vegans? When everyone at the cook-out is enjoying their delicious steak and one guy has to make a point that they don't like meat, and breaks out his salad? Does this guy think he's better than you cause he doesn't eat meat?
Same thing. Nothing to do with insecurity.
-
What do you think of vegans? When everyone at the cook-out is enjoying their delicious steak and one guy has to make a point that they don't like meat, and breaks out his salad? Does this guy think he's better than you cause he doesn't eat meat?
Same thing. Nothing to do with insecurity.
Not the same.
I've always got other drink options. Give me a water. I never make a big deal out of it. I try to do it quietly. Hardly ever goes that way. I order last and those that got booze have questions. Order first and it becomes uncomfortable.
Vegan comes to my house and doesn't tell me in advance I might not have other options. I'll try to find something. Tells me up front and I'll try to accommodate.
By the same token if I'm going to a vegans house I'm not going to bring my own steaks. Can't tell you how many times I've had friends and family who know I rarely drink show up with their own fucking cooler and jam stuff in my fridge.
Got friends we enjoy doing stuff with but we are excluded from anything where alcohol might be involved. Never said anything about it. Don't judge. But "no thanks, we don't drink beer" was enough. Fine by me.
You can rationalize this to yourself any way you want. I've been on both sides.
It is what it is.
-
Booze provides no value that can offset its harm.
Your logic is that alcohol's harm > alcohol's benefits, therefore alcohol is evil and should be banned.
Applying such logic to other scenarios, gun's harms (deaths from non-self defense situations) > gun's benefits (successful self defense situations), therefore guns are evil and should be banned.
I've never said it should be illegal. If I ruled the universe it would not exist. I don't rule the universe (yet).
You stated that alcohol hurts you, and thus government intrusion would be fine with you. While not a direct endorsement for making alcohol illegal, it is very indicative of such. If you're fine with the government making alcohol illegal and think that this is what "should" be done, then yes, you are stating that alcohol should be banned.
But I'm not calling for it to be illegal or saying consumption is immoral.
Evil = immoral, no?
What I've seen in this thread is exactly what I deal with on a regular basis as the usual non-drinker in social or business settings.
"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"
If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade. I'm viewed with suspicion. They can't take the first no at face value.
Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity. Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink. That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver.
Speaking of sham arguments, no one's argument in this thread has referred to you as a prude or has attempted to force alcohol upon you. The only thing that has been stated is that your personal view on alcohol can not and should not be legally enforced. Not because it's not feasible to do so as proven by American history thus far, but because there is no reason to ban a substance which can be used responsibly.
-
Didn't say legal. It is legal.
I'd prefer it all to be destroyed and the ability to make it forgotten.
I'm not an idiot, the shit is way too entrenched now for any legalization efforts to succeed. It's not going away.
I'm merely asking why it's necessary. And no one can ever, ever, ever answer that.
It's not.
And since it kills people (proven), addicts them (proven), destroys families and careers (proven) I just have to wonder why it's so vehemently defended.
The anti-smoking push has worked better than expected. It's a brilliant campaign that's taken something that used to be considered normal and routine and made those who do it pariahs.
At some point the same tactics will be used to shame people out of drinking. I'll be on that bus if I'm around to see it come to pass.
Because it's been man's "pacifier" since the dawn of time. Just because you don't like it, or see any benefit in it, doesn't mean everybody else that does has some inherent flaw, (needs a pacifier as you put it) is an addict or drunk. By far, the majority of consumers consume it within the window of responsibly.
And your contention that it has zero benefits is false too. There's evidence to suggest (according to the Mayo Clinic):
Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits. It may:
Reduce your risk of developing heart disease
Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack
Possibly reduce your risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
Lower your risk of gallstones
Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes
Moderate alcohol use may be of most benefit only if you're an older adult or if you have existing risk factors for heart disease, such as high cholesterol.
Here's the link so you can pick out the stuff to argue it's harm outweighs any good that can be accomplished in other ways: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024
There's also general evidence that clearly shows stress relief is good for the health, and if a glass of wine, a beer, or stiff drink offers that, then there's benefit in that. And if someone chooses that, over running a couple of miles, they should be free to, and should be free of the judgement that they "need a pacifier" simply because you don't like the shit.
Clearly heavy and long term alcohol use/abuse can have numerous negative impacts on the body and health. Again, that's a decision made by the user. Eating lots of Big Macs over time will have negative effects on your health. And an benefits of the Big Mac can certainly and easily be attained through better choices. Only the fucking moonbats want to ban Big Macs because some people can't control their intake.
As for your contention that it has "innocent victims". Pffft. All those are victims of the actions of a person or persons who made a conscience decision to engage in some behavior. It could be going out and drinking without a plan to get home safely without driving drunk. At some point the chain is started with a sober, rational thinking decision. Sometimes the decision maker fails to use good judgement, and that gets compounded by their inability to limit their intake. At some point along the way, again, there was a conscience and rational decision, though the judgement may have been clouded by alcohol, they were still at their wits enough to say "I need to stop".
The same goes for addiction. Yes, addiction is real. It's both mental and physical when it comes to alcohol. A heavy drinker can die from DTs when drying out. Still, in the end, there was a point when the problem became evident, but it wasn't too late to stop drinking. It takes a decision to stop if you have a problem, and ONLY a decision to stop, jail/prison, or death will make an alcoholic stop. Those that wind up in jail/prison or dead, had the chance to make a decision before it got to that point. All alcohol does is sit in it's container until someone pops the cork and takes a drink.
-
"you dont want a beer? You one of them religious nuts? In a program or something? Bring my man here a beer!"
If I decline it's assumed I'm some kind of intolerant prude who is trying to shit on the fun parade. I'm viewed with suspicion. They can't take the first no at face value.
Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity. Few respect my simple "no thanks." I almost always end up having to explain that I just don't drink. That leads to conversations about why, the unstated suspicion that I'm looking down on the rest of them and think ilm better than they are. And then I get tapped to be the driver.
That (and this whole thread) is so full of judgement of drinkers it's pathetic, and it's you being pissed at being judged for being a non drinker! Irony?
-
Your logic is that alcohol's harm > alcohol's benefits, therefore alcohol is evil and should be banned.
Nope. Said I would prefer it didn't exist. Think whooping it up or even arguing for the right to purchase it in ever larger containers is a bullshit waste of time.
Applying such logic to other scenarios, gun's harms (deaths from non-self defense situations) > gun's benefits (successful self defense situations), therefore guns are evil and should be banned.
You keep banging on the gun drum like you're eventually going to get a song out of it. Wrong again.
Guns provide some benefit. They are necessary for protection in many instances. You don't buy too many guns and become incoherent. You can't swallow so many bullets that you can't make logical decisions. The "value" of alcohol is miniscule, if there is such, and the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Guns are regulated. If you commit a crime with a gun you likely can't get another one legally. Kill somebody in a DUI? Beat your wife senseless because you're smashed? If you can scrape together enough coins, you can walk right into the ABC store and load up again the next day.
Are you seriously so dense that you can't see the difference (and I'm using the metaphorical you, not the specific one) between something that impairs you physically and mentally even when used strictly as intended and something that can be wrongly used? Holding a gun doesn't alter your brain patterns. Drinking even one swallow of alcohol does. Even one.
Eating a ham sandwich while driving is a distraction. So is brushing your hair, whacking off, putting on lipstick, reading a book, ogling the babysitter or fiddling with the radio. Distraction does not equal impaired.
You stated that alcohol hurts you, and thus government intrusion would be fine with you. While not a direct endorsement for making alcohol illegal, it is very indicative of such. If you're fine with the government making alcohol illegal and think that this is what "should" be done, then yes, you are stating that alcohol should be banned.
If the government decided to intervene, I wouldn't be offended. But I'm not campaigning for such. I'd prefer it simply didn't exist and still haven't heard one valid rationalization beyond "Cuz I like it" that it should.
Evil = immoral, no?
Speaking of sham arguments, no one's argument in this thread has referred to you as a prude or has attempted to force alcohol upon you. The only thing that has been stated is that your personal view on alcohol can not and should not be legally enforced. Not because it's not feasible to do so as proven by American history thus far, but because there is no reason to ban a substance which can be used responsibly.
Never said it should be illegal (again I say this, but I doubt it will sink in). I only wish it didn't exist. Never even attempted to say that was enforceable. Only asked for ANYONE to show me what value it provided in contrast to the wreckage it leaves in its wake. Only THS came close (Chizad's link was very weak) with his link from Harvard. But the reality is that those marginal benefits don't come close to offsetting the damage. 10,000 auto deaths a year? How many of Chizad's heart attacks, strokes, etc. are booze related?
I ask you again. What if PetroChem came out with a BuzzaGas, a cannister of gas you could inhale that produced hallucinations, was highly addictive and caused myriad physical and mental impairments. What if PetroChem put out a report that said 10,000 people (1500 children) per year would die as a result of car crashes as a direct result of BuzzaGas. What if PetroChem said another 30,000 a year would die as a result of illnesses and organ damage directly related to BuzzaGas. What would happen to that product? Would it get to market? Would there be panic in the streets? Would there be marches on Washington, riots? Calls for the executives of PetroChem to be prosecuted?
It wouldn't exist. Which would be okay by me.
Alcohol cannot be used responsibly. That is my position. Many people seem to think it can, many of them are dead ass wrong.
If you've never behaved in a manner you would not ordinarily, if you've never been a boor in public, if you've never violated your own set of internal moral codes because you drank a little too much, then you're either a liar or the rare exception who can possibly use alcohol responsibly. I'm not going to point fingers but some of the claims of responsible use are utterly laughable in light of what's known.
I can't claim consistently responsible use.
Sure, if you have a grenade and pull the pin a couple of times a week, if you're responsible it won't blow up in your face. But it only takes one fuckup. Just one.
Why pull the pin? What purpose does it truly serve? (Hint: None)
I also never said anyone in this thread referred to me as a prude. My point was that should anybody say no to alcohol -- even in the spirit of "I wish it didn't exist" the defense is fairly typical. If you don't drink YOU'RE the one with the problem and you must be educated.
-
That (and this whole thread) is so full of judgement of drinkers it's pathetic, and it's you being pissed at being judged for being a non drinker! Irony?
Wouldn't know it if you smelled it.
I've judged nobody. You've all put words in my mouth and argued positions I never took, but that's typical.
-
Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits. It may:
Reduce your risk of developing heart disease
Reduce your risk of dying of a heart attack
Possibly reduce your risk of strokes, particularly ischemic strokes
Lower your risk of gallstones
Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes
Moderate alcohol use may be of most benefit only if you're an older adult or if you have existing risk factors for heart disease, such as high cholesterol.
Lots of maybes and possibles up there.
Let's deal in realities.
Deaths: Alcohol related per year, a conservative estimate is 50,000. That's not a maybe or a possibly. That's a fact.
Strike 56.
Keep swinging. I enjoy the breeze.
-
Wouldn't know it if you smelled it.
I've judged nobody. You've all put words in my mouth and argued positions I never took, but that's typical.
This isn't judgement? It is your words.
"Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't. And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too. "
"Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity."
Please tell me what words I put in your mouth, or what arguments I attributed to you that you didn't make?
-
This isn't judgement? It is your words.
"Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't. And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too. "
"Far too many drinkers only feel good about themselves if they can get others to join in. I see it as insecurity."
Please tell me what words I put in your mouth, or what arguments I attributed to you that you didn't make?
Sure. The pacifier line was reaching. I found it funny. I guess I should have used titty because you're actually getting some liquid out of a titty, much as when you suck on a bottle.
Too many drinkers are insecure. That's my experience. I get tired of being encouraged to "be one of the guys" and have a drink. I don't care for it. Don't care if you do, but don't force me to do the same. I don't want to most of the time. That need for me to drink just because you (metaphorically) are is insecurity IMO.
I watched a friend who was trying desperately to stop because he was concerned about the impact it was beginning to have over his life get relentlessly badgered. You can have just one. Why can't you have just one? Come on. Have a glass of wine. Quit being a puss. Just one glass. It's not going to hurt you. Where are your balls, man?
And then he did.
Why? Because if he wasn't "with" them, they assumed he was against them. Crab in the bucket. Can't let somebody do better because that might reflect badly on me.
I've seen that same shit play out (not just with alcohol) over and over and over in my life.
I'm sure some of you honestly think you can "drink responsibly." It's my opinion (based on years of observation) that there's really no such thing.
You don't pull the pin on a live grenade every day just for kicks. You don't swallow a shot glass of poison just because it probably won't kill you this time.
-
Sure. The pacifier line was reaching. I found it funny. I guess I should have used titty because you're actually getting some liquid out of a titty, much as when you suck on a bottle.
Too many drinkers are insecure. That's my experience. I get tired of being encouraged to "be one of the guys" and have a drink. I don't care for it. Don't care if you do, but don't force me to do the same. I don't want to most of the time. That need for me to drink just because you (metaphorically) are is insecurity IMO.
I watched a friend who was trying desperately to stop because he was concerned about the impact it was beginning to have over his life get relentlessly badgered. You can have just one. Why can't you have just one? Come on. Have a glass of wine. Quit being a puss. Just one glass. It's not going to hurt you. Where are your balls, man?
And then he did.
Why? Because if he wasn't "with" them, they assumed he was against them. Crab in the bucket. Can't let somebody do better because that might reflect badly on me.
I've seen that same shit play out (not just with alcohol) over and over and over in my life.
I'm sure some of you honestly think you can "drink responsibly." It's my opinion (based on years of observation) that there's really no such thing.
You don't pull the pin on a live grenade every day just for kicks. You don't swallow a shot glass of poison just because it probably won't kill you this time.
You have your experience, and your opinions. I quit drinking, and all my drinking friends went out of their way to not drink around me for a while. That pissed me off. I felt like I was keeping them from doing something they wanted to do. None tried to get me to drink. Never had that in any social setting either. I don't think I've ever had anybody question me when I declined to have a drink. Maybe at most a cursory "we have a designated driver" but no badgering.
It's your opinion that nobody can drink responsibly. Some people have the same opinion about exceeding the posted speed limit, or owning a gun. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence all around you to say otherwise, but you're entitled to your opinion.
To some, most in fact, alcohol isn't poison. It's not like pulling a pin on a live grenade to have a drink. They're not playing with fire. Some people simply are not predisposed to alcoholism, and they can make decisions about when and where they drink so as not to endanger others. They can drink socially, occassionally and in moderation their entire lives with no adverse effect on job, family or health. In fact, that's most drinkers IMHO and experience.
-
Give not one shoot about its economic value. Worst response of the day.
We put people in jail for profiting from things proven to kill.
No, it was good and valid response. You just suck and are stupid. Or put a way that you will understand...pffffffttt!
Me: #winning
You: :pwnd:
Shake and bake
-
My conclusion is PERFECTLY logical.
It provides no benefits. It causes harm.
I'm still waiting for one single thing, one benefit alcohol provides that makes it worth the utter carnage it causes. You won't because you cant. You'll make every other argument in the world, stomp your feet and end up crying about your pacifier. But you won't and can't show me a risk/reward relationship that makes alcohol worth the risk.
War? Yep. I get it. People die.
NASA? People died to get us to the moon. It was worth it.
Dangerous jobs like underwater welding? Sure. It's a risk.
I even get NASCAR. You run the risk of dying every time you get in there but you do it for reward and entertainment.
Booze? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT. I don't give a fiddling fuck how much you like your afternoon brew and the numbing effect it has on your senses. Your enjoyment isn't worth the lives it takes. Not today, not tomorrow and not ever.
Do you have a personal reason to dislike alcohol?
Does that affect your opinion on this issue?
Same answer.
-
You have your experience, and your opinions. I quit drinking, and all my drinking friends went out of their way to not drink around me for a while. That pissed me off. I felt like I was keeping them from doing something they wanted to do. None tried to get me to drink. Never had that in any social setting either. I don't think I've ever had anybody question me when I declined to have a drink. Maybe at most a cursory "we have a designated driver" but no badgering.
It's your opinion that nobody can drink responsibly. Some people have the same opinion about exceeding the posted speed limit, or owning a gun. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence all around you to say otherwise, but you're entitled to your opinion.
To some, most in fact, alcohol isn't poison. It's not like pulling a pin on a live grenade to have a drink. They're not playing with fire. Some people simply are not predisposed to alcoholism, and they can make decisions about when and where they drink so as not to endanger others. They can drink socially, occassionally and in moderation their entire lives with no adverse effect on job, family or health. In fact, that's most drinkers IMHO and experience.
No anecdotal evidence to prove that alcohol (even in the smallest of doses) does not begin to cause chemical reactions that lead to impairment. Not an opinion. Fact. There is no "responsible" use of something that damages your system and causes you to be impaired. That's not in question.
The poisonous quality of alcohol is not an opinion either. It's a fact. Alcohol is a poison. You pour it on your plants, they die. You feed it to your pets, you're endangering their lives. You spray it on bugs, they die. Alcohol poisons every organ in your body with which it interacts (brain included).
I've seen enough here that I'm just going to plant my victory flag and move on.
(http://www.penny-picker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/war-300x300.jpg)
In a few weeks, months, years maybe I'll give you the opportunity to fight this (and lose) again.
-
Do you have a personal reason to dislike alcohol?
Does that affect your opinion on this issue?
Same answer.
Whatever personal reasons there may be only gave me clarity enough to look at the realities without the prism of beer ads, peer pressure, media, etc.
Those personal reasons caused me to ask what value alcohol truly served. Trust me, I sought it out. I wanted to find a redeeming value to make sense of the senseless.
There isn't one.
It's one of the few things on the planet that aren't symmetrical (at least in the manner in which we use it). Almost everything has balance. There's a tradeoff. Taking a shit is nasty, but that shit recycles into the soil and fertilizes new growth.
Alcohol (in our context) is a giant pulsing negative with the slimmest of possible health benefits (all of which can be derived in other ways) and a glaring neon "Because I like it" as the only redemptive values. There's no symmetry. No balance. No redemptive good that makes the bad palatable.
That's not enough for me.
-
No anecdotal evidence to prove that alcohol (even in the smallest of doses) does not begin to cause chemical reactions that lead to impairment. Not an opinion. Fact. There is no "responsible" use of something that damages your system and causes you to be impaired. That's not in question.
The poisonous quality of alcohol is not an opinion either. It's a fact. Alcohol is a poison. You pour it on your plants, they die. You feed it to your pets, you're endangering their lives. You spray it on bugs, they die. Alcohol poisons every organ in your body with which it interacts (brain included).
I've seen enough here that I'm just going to plant my victory flag and move on.
(http://www.penny-picker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/war-300x300.jpg)
In a few weeks, months, years maybe I'll give you the opportunity to fight this (and lose) again.
There are lots of things that in small doses are not harmful, but in large doses are poison. Not just alcohol. Using only half the equation to "prove your preconceived notions" is flawed.
Your assertion that the least little bit impairs you...again, you're using the black and white, when it's shades of gray.
Plant your "I win the opinion war flag". It's just another opinion.
-
There are lots of things that in small doses are not harmful, but in large doses are poison. Not just alcohol. Using only half the equation to "prove your preconceived notions" is flawed.
Your assertion that the least little bit impairs you...again, you're using the black and white, when it's shades of gray.
Plant your "I win the opinion war flag". It's just another opinion.
Maybe you didn't see this while you were blinding yourself with your failure to discern the difference between opinion and fact.
(http://www.petalatino.com/at/page/actions/Victory-Flag.gif)
-
Maybe you didn't see this while you were blinding yourself with your failure to discern the difference between opinion and fact.
(http://www.petalatino.com/at/page/actions/Victory-Flag.gif)
Maybe you didn't hear...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z2Rv9ZjgZfU/T11Xx7zSUYI/AAAAAAAAAwk/QS4Vgfw-6wY/s1600/I+Win+You+Lose.jpg)
-
Maybe you didn't hear...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Nx-0gLWOl3o/S9WjmNaN3YI/AAAAAAAABVk/INDHy0ZfV54/s1600/Its+Over.gif)
You failed.
I'll let you try again after you've worked on your position for a few months. This has been on my mind for 23 years.
You can't win. But at least figure out the difference between "impaired" and "distracted" and get a handle on what's a fact and what's an opinion when you give it your next shot.
-
You expect me to have sympathy because you couldn't buy beer in 55 gallon drums?
Here's the silliness of the ban on larger bottles: you can already buy beer by the keg in AL. Why the restriction on any size in between?
-
Here's the silliness of the ban on larger bottles: you can already buy beer by the keg in AL. Why the restriction on any size in between?
I thought bitching about it to begin with was stupid and thus my comment.
I'm sorry you couldn't get beer in 40s. Nowhere in Alabama is anyone more than 2.5 hours from a place where you could. If having a big ass bottle is so fucking important, haul ass over the line.
Just don't drink it on the way back.
And if it's REALLY taste (ridiculous argument) drink the non-alcoholic kind and nobody has an issue.
-
You keep banging on the gun drum like you're eventually going to get a song out of it. Wrong again.
Guns provide some benefit.
And you keep banging on the "some benefit" argument. The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be illegal. Or viewed as immoral/evil. Or taken out of existence by some fictitious ruler of the universe. However you want to phrase it, the absence of a benefit in something doesn't mean that said something shouldn't exist.
Guns are regulated.
Alcohol is regulated.
If you commit a crime with a gun you likely can't get another one legally. Kill somebody in a DUI? Beat your wife senseless because you're smashed? If you can scrape together enough coins, you can walk right into the ABC store and load up again the next day.
This sounds like a gripe with our legal system, not alcohol itself.
Are you seriously so dense that you can't see the difference (and I'm using the metaphorical you, not the specific one) between something that impairs you physically and mentally even when used strictly as intended and something that can be wrongly used? Holding a gun doesn't alter your brain patterns. Drinking even one swallow of alcohol does. Even one.
Drinking one swallow of alcohol does not make me go kill someone. Drinking one swallow of alcohol doesn't make me do anything.
Are my senses dulled? Sure. But does miniscule or moderate amounts of alcohol make me so unaware of what I'm doing that I jump into a car and race off recklessly? No. I have to make a conscious decision to take such actions subsequent to drinking.
On the other hand, Ambien and Lunesta cause many people to sleepwalk without knowledge of what they're doing, to the point that people will actually get in their vehicle and drive. I represented a client who was arrested for a DUI because he took Lunesta before bed and woke up in jail. If alcohol did that, then you might have a point.
But because people are still consciously aware of what they're doing as they imbibe alcohol, they have the ability to choose to drive or to choose not to drive. And if they are so inebriated that they have no clue what they are doing, then they had to make a conscious decision earlier to continue drinking until they got to that point. That's an irresponsible choice on their part; alcohol does not force you to do anything.
I ask you again. What if PetroChem came out with a BuzzaGas, a cannister of gas you could inhale that produced hallucinations, was highly addictive and caused myriad physical and mental impairments.
Alcohol does not produce hallucinations, nor is it considered to be "highly addictive" when compared to other drugs. You're reaching quite a bit with this hypothetical.
Alcohol cannot be used responsibly. That is my position. Many people seem to think it can, many of them are dead ass wrong.
Your position appears to be based off of your personal experiences. Sure, you throw out some statistics regarding deaths related to alcohol, but you ignore the number of people who have been able to consistently enjoy alcohol without causing deaths. Additionally, you refuse to acknowledge that those deaths related to alcohol were ultimately caused by a person's choice to take X action after imbibing alcohol.
I might as well pull up some numbers regarding deaths caused by gun violence and conclude that guns are bad without addressing the fact that someone had to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger.
If you've never behaved in a manner you would not ordinarily, if you've never been a boor in public, if you've never violated your own set of internal moral codes because you drank a little too much, then you're either a liar or the rare exception who can possibly use alcohol responsibly. I'm not going to point fingers but some of the claims of responsible use are utterly laughable in light of what's known.
I've never placed anyone's life or safety in danger while intoxicated. I'm pretty sure your arguments have had nothing to do with whether someone makes a fool of themselves or is a "boor in public."
-
titldnr
-
THS has come the closest to answering the basic question. He's the only one who didn't make up ludicrious arguments or build silly straw men and thrash about.
He listed possible health benefits of moderate consumption and provided links. I can work with that.
It remains my conention that the miniscule benefits portrayed in those articles are overshadowed completely by the negative impact and influence of alcohol, but I can at least give credibility to his position.
The rest of you? Christ. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff....
Yeah, I said nothing about the polyphenols that mutliply during the fermentation of grapes or grains. I never said any of that.
-
Nope. Said I would prefer it didn't exist.
Not to beat a dead horse but you did call to "ban it". Just saying. And I will leave it at that because I think I know where some of the arguments in this thread are coming from.
If his rationale behind alcohol is that it breaks families, then why isn't he banning it altogether?
I am in favor.
Fuck a bigger container.
-
Not to beat a dead horse but you did call to "ban it". Just saying. And I will leave it at that because I think I know where some of the arguments in this thread are coming from.
If banning were a realistic option I'd support it. Lots of things less harmful than alcohol are banned. Lead in paint is banned. DDT is banned.
But not actively calling for that to happen.
-
What wrong wit the beer we gots now? It drank pretty good, don't it?
Haha it drank pretty good.
-
If banning were a realistic option I'd support it. Lots of things less harmful than alcohol are banned. Lead in paint is banned. DDT is banned.
But not actively calling for that to happen.
Hey, lead is ok. I ate lead paint as a kid. So did Snaggle and simp. We are all perfectly fi....wait. Nevermind. Yes, lead is bad!
-
Kaos don't you drink? I thought I saw some beverages consumed last golf outing.
-
Hey, lead is ok. I ate lead paint as a kid. So did Snaggle and simp. We are all perfectly fi....wait. Nevermind. Yes, lead is bad!
Yeah.....like....yeah. We didn't have to...want us.....I'm hungry.
-
And you keep banging on the "some benefit" argument. The fact that something has no benefit whatsoever does not mean that it should be illegal. Or viewed as immoral/evil. Or taken out of existence by some fictitious ruler of the universe. However you want to phrase it, the absence of a benefit in something doesn't mean that said something shouldn't exist.
Damn son. You need comprehension goggles.
No benefit isn't why alcohol shouldn't exist. The ability to cause harm is. When something causes harm THEN you look to see what the benefits are to determine if the benefit is worth the price.
But it's not the lack of benefit, it's the capacity to harm that puts alcohol in that category.
Alcohol is regulated.
This sounds like a gripe with our legal system, not alcohol itself.
Not in such a way that those who do harm to themselves or others are prevented from obtaining it.
Drinking one swallow of alcohol does not make me go kill someone. Drinking one swallow of alcohol doesn't make me do anything.
Are my senses dulled? Sure. But does miniscule or moderate amounts of alcohol make me so unaware of what I'm doing that I jump into a car and race off recklessly? No. I have to make a conscious decision to take such actions subsequent to drinking.
On the other hand, Ambien and Lunesta cause many people to sleepwalk without knowledge of what they're doing, to the point that people will actually get in their vehicle and drive. I represented a client who was arrested for a DUI because he took Lunesta before bed and woke up in jail. If alcohol did that, then you might have a point.
But because people are still consciously aware of what they're doing as they imbibe alcohol, they have the ability to choose to drive or to choose not to drive. And if they are so inebriated that they have no clue what they are doing, then they had to make a conscious decision earlier to continue drinking until they got to that point. That's an irresponsible choice on their part; alcohol does not force you to do anything.
The part in bold discredits any of the rest of the grasping attempts to justify. You lost that point by finally admitting what I've been saying for nine pages now.
Alcohol does not produce hallucinations, nor is it considered to be "highly addictive" when compared to other drugs. You're reaching quite a bit with this hypothetical.
Oh, so the guy screaming all night about spiders crawling through the walls while I was in the hospital for my recent surgery actually DID see spiders? Damn. I need to contact UAB. They told me he was just going through alcohol withdrawal. Lying damn nurses. I knew there had to be spiders in there.
Those "other drugs" that are highly addictive? All are strictly regulated and available only by prescription. I'd be okay if things were handled that way. Get a scrip for a beer? Yep. I'd be good with it. Alcohol is probably the most addictive drug freely available.
Your position appears to be based off of your personal experiences. Sure, you throw out some statistics regarding deaths related to alcohol, but you ignore the number of people who have been able to consistently enjoy alcohol without causing deaths. Additionally, you refuse to acknowledge that those deaths related to alcohol were ultimately caused by a person's choice to take X action after imbibing alcohol.
I'm only asking about risk/reward. The statistics are what they are. It doesn't MAKE A FUCK that everybody who uses it doesn't kill or die. You have to evaluate the risk vs. the benefit. Would BuzzaGas be allowed to go to market today if it produced the same effects as alcohol? I notice you ignored that analogy. You ignored it because you know it to be true.
I might as well pull up some numbers regarding deaths caused by gun violence and conclude that guns are bad without addressing the fact that someone had to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger.
I'm going to pull the fucking trigger if you keep trying to make this ignorant comparison. How many fucking times do I have to state the simple fact that holding a gun in your hand does not impair your judgment?
Sometimes people who have guns do stupid things. They have to be mentally impaired from some other cause than the gun itself. The gun did not cause the mental damage that led to the harmful action.
It's a simple concept.
I've never placed anyone's life or safety in danger while intoxicated. I'm pretty sure your arguments have had nothing to do with whether someone makes a fool of themselves or is a "boor in public."
Not even your own?
-
Kaos don't you drink? I thought I saw some beverages consumed last golf outing.
I've already said that I do on occasion. Rarely. Maybe two or three times a year at most.
But I'd be perfectly fine if it all went away tomorrow and never existed again. Means nothing to me. I'd prefer that the potential for damage to be removed even if it meant that my occasional drink wasn't available. A little sacrifice for a greater good.
-
K, you might actually be barking up the right tree when you said something about someone who had harmed before under the influence not being able to buy it again. Sort of like background checks with guns. If you are a felon? No gun. It may take some coordination of some sort and it would still have some gaps, but if you require Driver's License to buy alcohol, there could in theory be a DUI database attached to DL numbers. It would be about a 10 second response. Problem is, every POS would have to be hooked into the Xref database. Not sure how feasible that is. I would have no issue with refusing alcohol sales to those who have demonstrated harm with it for X amount of time.
-
Side note: Not really getting into the fray with this one except to say I would not be here if it weren't for the occasional alcohol overindulgence. I consider that a benefit. :)
-
No benefit isn't why alcohol shouldn't exist. The ability to cause harm is. When something causes harm THEN you look to see what the benefits are to determine if the benefit is worth the price.
When a can of alcohol gets into a car and recklessly drives it, then you'll have a legitimate argument that alcohol causes harm. Otherwise, the harm of which you speak is a direct result of the irresponsible use of alcohol and the subsequent choices that an individual makes after imbibing.
Not in such a way that those who do harm to themselves or others are prevented from obtaining it.
Those who use alcohol in an irresponsible manner and harm others should be legally punished for their actions. If you feel that the punishments they currently receive for their actions aren't adequate, then it sounds as if your issue is with the legal system and its treatment of alcohol abuse, which is something I agree with.
The part in bold discredits any of the rest of the grasping attempts to justify. You lost that point by finally admitting what I've been saying for nine pages now.
Dulled senses do not equal uncontrollable reckless actions. Just because my reaction times are slower does not mean that I will get into a car, no more than possessing a gun means that I will illegally shoot someone. In both instances, a conscious decision still must be made by a person in order for any harm to come about; neither the gun or the alcohol are able to cause harm to others by themselves.
Oh, so the guy screaming all night about spiders crawling through the walls while I was in the hospital for my recent surgery actually DID see spiders? Damn. I need to contact UAB. They told me he was just going through alcohol withdrawal. Lying damn nurses. I knew there had to be spiders in there.
Alcohol withdrawal does not equal inebriation. Your argument was not premised on the number of people who cause deaths by going through alcohol withdrawal.
Regardless, even if you want to go down that road, there is still the issue of choice executed by prior conscious decisions. One sip of alcohol does not send someone into alcohol withdrawals and immediate hallucinations. Five beers wouldn't either. If there is a significant number of people who cause harm to others due to alcohol withdrawals, then you have to take into consideration the fact that they consciously chose to drink alcohol in such a quantity for such an extended period of time so as to develop an addiction and eventually cause alcohol withdrawal symptoms.
Those "other drugs" that are highly addictive? All are strictly regulated and available only by prescription.
That reminds me: I need to refill my prescription of cigarettes this afternoon.
But on a more serious note, my point was that referring to alcohol as "highly addictive" is misleading, unless you either have a very broad categorization of "highly addictive" which includes a variety of drugs with differing levels of addictiveness, or are just ignoring other drugs completely.
Cocaine, heroin, and even nicotine, for example, are "rated" as more addictive substances than alcohol in peer-reviewed medical journals. This isn't to say that alcohol can't be referred to as "highly addictive," but there should be acknowledgement of the existence of more addictive drugs.
Aside from a differing level of addictiveness, many of those drugs which are more strictly regulated also have a more extreme and immediate effect than alcohol does. Drinking a beer does not affect you in the same manner as doing a line of cocaine, ingesting a hit of acid, or injecting 50ccs of heroin. It can very easily be argued that a person can not responsibly or consciously control their actions at all when influenced by such drugs; the same can not be said for alcohol, and the majority of members on this board can serve as proof of that.
I'm only asking about risk/reward. The statistics are what they are. It doesn't MAKE A FUCK that everybody who uses it doesn't kill or die. You have to evaluate the risk vs. the benefit.
You first indicated with statistics on deaths related to alcohol that it was actual harm vs. benefits. But now, it's risk of harm vs. benefits.
Regardless of this slight change in your argument, the fact still stands that the risk is created by a person's choice. By drinking one beer, I don't risk losing all control of my ability to make choices. Alcohol does not take control of my body and force me to walk to my car and drive. One drink of alcohol does not force me to continue imbibing until I'm not consciously aware of my choices. I have to make a decision to either drive while inebriated, or to continue drinking until I no longer have the ability to control my decisions consciously. Either way, it was my irresponsible choice that put me in such a predicament. I've made responsible drinking decisions for the last decade which have never resulted in harm to myself or others.
Is there a risk that I will act irresponsibly? Sure, but it still requires that I make a conscious effort to act irresponsibly. The alcohol can't do it by itself. There's a risk that I might decide to act impulsively or irresponsibly with a gun in the future, but that doesn't mean that I need to stay away from guns. But if I do choose to act irresponsibly in the future with a gun, then I should be blamed for my actions, not the gun. The same should be said for alcohol.
Would BuzzaGas be allowed to go to market today if it produced the same effects as alcohol? I notice you ignored that analogy. You ignored it because you know it to be true.
I ignored the analogy because it wasn't an analogy. Inebriation from alcohol does not cause hallucinations. Withdrawals do, but as addressed above, that was not the crux of your argument; inebriation was. Even if we assume that alcohol withdrawals can result in the death of others, there was still the choice of the person to imbibe alcohol to such an extent that they were in that situation. Had they responsibly and moderately imbibed alcohol, they wouldn't have withdrawals. You're blaming a substance for someone's conscious decision to abuse it.
Under that logic, dextromethorphan should be banned, because a person loses the ability to make intelligent decisions as a result of hallucinations and general impairment when they choose to ingest quantities of it which are above reasonable and/or recommended dosages.
I'm going to pull the fucking trigger if you keep trying to make this ignorant comparison. How many fucking times do I have to state the simple fact that holding a gun in your hand does not impair your judgment?
The comparison that is being made is not that guns impair your judgment. Rather, the comparison is that, in order for a gun to be harmful to others, someone has to make a conscious decision to pull the trigger. Similarly, in order for the ingestion of alcohol to be harmful to others, someone has to make a conscious decision to partake in an activity that they shouldn't while inebriated.
The only portion of your argument that addresses this is that alcohol impairs your judgment. However, my judgment isn't impaired to the point that I feel an urge to drive a vehicle after one beer. Or two. Or five. In fact, unless I am black out drunk, I know that I should not drive. If I am black out drunk, then I chose to put myself in that situation, and if I did so without others around me who would be my DD or otherwise keep my from driving, then that is an irresponsible choice on my part. My choice should be at fault, not the alcohol, because I could have stopped drinking while my judgment was not impaired, yet I consciously chose not to.
Not even your own?
Sure, I've been so absurdly drunk that I could have injured myself in some manner. I don't get that drunk unless I'm surrounded by people I know, and I have already planned (or will be able to plan) a way to safely get home. You'll recall at the golf tournament last year that, despite my crazy eyes and stumbling about, I rode home with a sober friend and never made an attempt to even reach for my keys when it was time to leave, much less actually get in my vehicle.
However, I'm pretty sure that the likelihood of me injuring myself as a result of inebriation is not a part of your argument, as you don't really care what negative effects a substance has on me. Unless, of course, you're recanting this statement:
I don't give a shit if you drink lye or suck down draino. Don't care if you smoke 40 packs a day (in your own house where it's not on me). Doesn't bother me if you eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch, dinner, fourth meal, second supper and third snack.
To quote Raising Arizona "You're only hurting yourself with that rambunctious behavior."
-
TFL;NGR
Because you're making the same stupid erroneous arguments all over again. And failing. Again.
-
TFL;NGR
(http://www.jerzeyric.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Thats_Racist_1-3d_phase.gif)
-
(http://memeblender.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/first-world-problems-meme-someone-on-the-internet-disagrees-with-me.jpg)
-
(http://www.jerzeyric.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Thats_Racist_1-3d_phase.gif)
:bugs:
-
K, I agree that the harm alcohol has the potential to do outweighs any benefits it might have. However, do you not agree that the harm it causes is almost always the direct result of a poor decision made by someone while sober? You've poo poo'd the gun argument, but I see it as the same. It's only dangerous to others when abused or used with poor judgement, and it takes human actions to make it dangerous. Do you not see the humans causing the harm as at fault? Or do you simply believe if they didn't have access to alcohol that they wouldn't be causing the harm?
The harm it causes to the one consuming it depends a lot on how often and how much. Consumed the way you claim you do, any harm it might do, is so slight that it's not noticeable, and probably is reversible. I've done some research on it in the past. Even the liver can repair itself to a certain point. People can drink socially all their lives and suffer no major health problems due to it.
-
TFL;NGR
Because you're making the same stupid erroneous arguments all over again. And failing. Again.
His arguments are better than your rebuttals, which are "nuh-uh" over and over again.
-
K, I agree that the harm alcohol has the potential to do outweighs any benefits it might have. However, do you not agree that the harm it causes is almost always the direct result of a poor decision made by someone while sober? You've poo poo'd the gun argument, but I see it as the same. It's only dangerous to others when abused or used with poor judgement, and it takes human actions to make it dangerous. Do you not see the humans causing the harm as at fault? Or do you simply believe if they didn't have access to alcohol that they wouldn't be causing the harm?
The harm it causes to the one consuming it depends a lot on how often and how much. Consumed the way you claim you do, any harm it might do, is so slight that it's not noticeable, and probably is reversible. I've done some research on it in the past. Even the liver can repair itself to a certain point. People can drink socially all their lives and suffer no major health problems due to it.
No, I really don't believe that harm is a result of a bad decision made by a sober person. Not if we're talking majority.
Not going to recite the list, but I've seen plenty of people, good people, people I would have trusted with my life start with one. One became two. Two begat six. Six turned into one at lunch and six on the way home. Every single person I've ever encountered who was addicted told me exactly the same things:
1) I can stop whenever, I just like the taste
2) I know when to quit (and in my experience, most who say they know when really don't, they keep going way past the point of embarrassing themselves)
3) I'm not hurting anybody
4) I got it under control
Very few of the addicts I've known were the type who were falling down, slobbering over themselves, passing out drunks. Those are bingers. Addicts go a little bit at a time. And a little more. And a little more. Until they can't make the rational intelligent decisions they honestly believe they can.
It's like boiling a frog. If the water's boiling and you throw him in there, he's going to try to get out. But put him in cool water and turn it up slowly five degrees at a time and the poor bastard will sit there until his skin boils off.
What you're failing (refusing) to acknowledge in the baseless gun analogy is that the gun itself can do no harm. It cannot change your mental state, it cannot alter your sensibilities. As VV admitted the first sip of alcohol begins that process. It's not the same argument by any stretch.
I truly and deeply believe that if alcohol did not exist, most of the problems that accompany it would cease to exist as well. A person who drives in an inebriated state and kills the innocent is not going to go get a shotgun and kill people for sport. His desire is not to kill.
-
His arguments are better than your rebuttals, which are "nuh-uh" over and over again.
His arguments are fatuous. Your ability to read dim.
-
No, I really don't believe that harm is a result of a bad decision made by a sober person. Not if we're talking majority.
Not going to recite the list, but I've seen plenty of people, good people, people I would have trusted with my life start with one. One became two. Two begat six. Six turned into one at lunch and six on the way home. Every single person I've ever encountered who was addicted told me exactly the same things:
1) I can stop whenever, I just like the taste
2) I know when to quit (and in my experience, most who say they know when really don't, they keep going way past the point of embarrassing themselves)
3) I'm not hurting anybody
4) I got it under control
Very few of the addicts I've known were the type who were falling down, slobbering over themselves, passing out drunks. Those are bingers. Addicts go a little bit at a time. And a little more. And a little more. Until they can't make the rational intelligent decisions they honestly believe they can.
It's like boiling a frog. If the water's boiling and you throw him in there, he's going to try to get out. But put him in cool water and turn it up slowly five degrees at a time and the poor bastard will sit there until his skin boils off.
What you're failing (refusing) to acknowledge in the baseless gun analogy is that the gun itself can do no harm. It cannot change your mental state, it cannot alter your sensibilities. As VV admitted the first sip of alcohol begins that process. It's not the same argument by any stretch.
I truly and deeply believe that if alcohol did not exist, most of the problems that accompany it would cease to exist as well. A person who drives in an inebriated state and kills the innocent is not going to go get a shotgun and kill people for sport. His desire is not to kill.
You're misunderstanding what I'm asking. There's really two prongs to the issues you raise.
Harm to others, and Harm to one's self. Then Harm to Others is broken down in to two prongs. Harm to innocent bystanders, ie drunk driver striking someone vs harm to family, friends, professional acquaintances through addiction.
In the harm to others like drunk driving can do, I argue that those are preventable by human decision making made while sober, and even to an extent while slightly impaired but not so much you're not able to make a sound decision. This is the only area I would apply the gun analogy to this.
You're right about addiction. It does sneak up on people, and they don't make a conscience decision to be one. The gun analogy doesn't remotely apply here, and I should have been more clear on how I thought it did. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. To the addict anyway. To most it's just an enjoyable way to unwind Do all alcoholics make the same excuses you list? Yes, but not all drinkers are alcoholics, nor are they all potential alcoholics. The twist is, you don't know if you are or aren't until it's too late. Do they trash personal and professional relationships? Yes, but again, that's not most drinkers. It's not pulling a pin on a live grenade, or ingesting poison to everybody. If you truly believed that you would not ever have a sip, which you admit you do, rare though it is. By your own admission of drinking lightly once or twice a year, you suggest it can be done responsibly by you.
As far as harm to one's self. Well, that's my right. My decision. And I know the arguments about everyone paying the bill via health care and insurance costs. Everybody has something harmful they do to themselves that affects this. Those same arguments go to banning fatty foods, foods with sugar, riding motorcycles and the list goes on.
If alcohol didn't exist? Someone would invent it. Or they'd find a suitable alternative. Folks been getting high, drunk, or stoned long before anybody was selling drugs or alcohol for profit. Now, make the human desire to get high, drunk, or stoned go away, then you'd have something.